Highway Asset Management Quick Start Guidance Note. Life Cycle Planning

Transcription

1 Highway Asset Management Quick Start Guidance Note Life Cycle Planning

2 Table of Contents 1 Introduction The Life Cycle Process Objective and Policies Inventory and Condition Data Cost of Maintaining Each Group of Assets Performance Gaps Demands and Risks Investment Strategy Appendix A Carriageway, Leicestershire County Council December Appendix B Structures, Surrey County Council March Appendix C Footway, Newcastle City Council October Appendix D Traffic Signal & Management Systems, Staffordshire County Council October Contributing Authors: Paul Boss Andrew Molyneux Mark Stephenson Staffordshire County Council Leeds City Council Cornwall County Council

3 1 Introduction 1 Lifecycle Management Plans form a key part of an Authority s Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP). Lifecycle planning is listed in the DfT s Start Up Guide as an activity under Growing your Asset Management practices. Effective lifecycle planning therefore requires several fundamental asset management activities to have been carried out and considerable asset knowledge to have been established. Without this knowledge, lifecycle plans will not target the effective maintenance and renewal of assets, leading to either premature maintenance or deterioration and possible safety risks to road, and non-road users, and to roadworkers. Figure 1 (from CSS) provides an overview of the asset management process. This guidance note focuses on life cycle planning, with additional notes available giving and overview of the whole process, and further details on boxes 2 and 4. Figure 1 Overview of Asset Management Processes

4 2 Effective lifecycle planning is about making the right investment at the right time to ensure that the asset delivers the requisite level of service over its full expected life, at the minimum cost. However, the lack of knowledge should not stop a local authority from starting these plans as they will, at least, document the status quo for the asset type or grouping, and help to identify the data required for effective decision making i.e. the plans should basically describe in detail how each asset is currently managed, and how investment decisions are made. Figure 2 below illustrates the typical whole life process for managing assets with particular emphasis on the deterioration maintenance cycle. This is where asset lifecycle planning will have the most significant impact on your authority. Figure 2 Typical Whole Life and Deterioration/Maintenance Process A lifecycle plan is required for each asset type, or for a group of assets, using a fairly generic template to help pose questions and steer thinking, without providing the answers. Remember that there are not any right or wrong answers. The plans (and HAMP/TAMP) should reflect what is appropriate for the particular authority but the rationale should be documented. It is important that the people actually involved with the asset management should write the specific asset lifecycle plan. It will probably take about 3 days of a person s time to write an initial plan once the template is established. This need for ownership is essential, but experience is that it is very difficult to get staff to devote time to this process. If consultants do need to be used, then it is certainly important that they interview the relevant people, and ensure that the appropriate people sign-off each specific plan. The plan should describe the decision making processes associated with that particular asset grouping, at each stage of its lifecycle, from Creation or Acquisition through to Disposal. Although, in the case of highways, roads themselves are rarely fully decommissioned, individual asset components are constantly being decommissioned, and may or may not be replaced, depending on current demand. The other phases in the lifecycle to consider are: Routine Maintenance, Renewal or Replacement and Upgrading.

5 3 The plan should start with a general description of the asset or asset grouping, and then document the inventory, condition, and performance so as to identify the funding required for the current and future needs of the asset. As a starting point, the following groupings are suggested to help cover the major highway assets although, in many cases, little will be known about some of the individual elements within these groupings: Roads Footways & Cycleways Bridges & Structures Drainage Public Rights of Way Street Lighting Signs & Street Furniture Environmental Assets CCTV It is important to remember that you can t do everything at once, and that the lifecycle plans can be added to, and expanded over time. As a service related to highway activities, winter service should be included within the plans, albeit not specific to the management of an individual asset. Lifecycle plans need to capture on a robust, consistent basis, all the relevant costs involved in maintaining the asset over the cycle to the chosen service performance. This information, when spread appropriately over the duration of the cycle, provides the basis for financial planning and budgeting, and for measuring asset depreciation. The forthcoming CIPFA Code of guidance will provide further advice on the development of financial information for these purposes. When lifecycle plans have been developed for all asset groups or at least the main asset groups, objective decisions can be made regarding the proportion of funding that can be allocated for each group to finance the most efficient and effective use of current and future funding. The options within each lifecycle plan should ensure that where the optimum proportion of funding is not available, the next or further best option can be assessed in competition with the options contained in the plans for other asset groups. As far as possible, selection of options should attempt to minimise lifecycle costs.

6 4 2 The Life Cycle Process Each local authority will have its own established asset and maintenance investment practices and a view of what processes and activities will make an effective lifecycle plan, tailored to their own asset hierarchy. This guide sets out the basic activities to establish an initial generic lifecycle plan following the process in Figure 3. Feedback and improvement loops at all stages are important but have not been shown for clarity. Set Objectives & Policies Collect Inventory & Condition Data Assess Demands & Risks Produce Investment Strategy Collect Maintenance Costs Assess Performance Gaps Figure 3 Generic Asset Management Lifecycle Process

7 5 3 Objective and Policies Each local authority will also have their own objectives and policies that determine the priorities of the authority, and these should be listed in the HAMP and TAMP. These can be included as part of an introduction to the lifecycle plan and considered when determining the options for various asset groups. For example, if an authority has a priority of improving the condition of roads then carriageways could be a priority for funding. However, if an objective is to improve the safety for pedestrians then footways or pedestrian signal facilities may take a priority. The underlying statements as to the priorities of the authority will generally include improving the safety and condition of highways and decisions will therefore be based on the economics and risk of maintaining each asset group, using proportions of available funding in accordance with the options contained in the lifecycle plans. Reference to objectives can therefore be a paragraph or list of priorities at the front end of the lifecycle plan, or as a general statement in an introduction to a group of plans. It is also useful for the lifecycle plan to set out the consequences of not achieving the objectives and highlight the impact of for example lack of investment or ill-informed maintenance interventions.

8 6 4 Inventory and Condition Data It is important to understand the type and quality of asset inventory and condition data required to measure performance, and decide on investment options to support the HAMP and other objectives. A data specification should therefore be established at the outset of lifecycle planning. This should set out the hierarchy, detail and priority of data attributes. If there are any gaps in what is collected, these should be fed back into the inspection and survey programme as a business case for future collection. All local authorities have a record of the highways they manage. For roads this can be found in the R199b form that is received from DfT each year. Due to the need to report Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI s) to 2007/08 *, all authorities also have easily available condition data for carriageways and a small proportion of footways that can be used as the basis for initial lifecycle plans. Due to planned cyclical lamp changes, all authorities should have good inventory and age related information for their street lighting, illuminated traffic signs and traffic management systems that is readily available. The problem areas with regard to inventory are therefore carriageway widths, total footway; and the lower value assets such as signs, safety fences, trees etc along with the usually unknown underground highway drainage systems. With the exception of drainage, information from authorities that have already collected inventory data should be available through regional highway groups, e.g. The Midland Service Improvement Group (MSIG) and can be used as an initial estimate for use in an authority s lifecycle plan, based on the respective lengths of each authority s network. Drainage inventory and condition is more difficult to establish as few, if any authorities have an accurate record of their highway drainage systems. A business case should be made for collecting this data against the consequential risk of impact to asset performance and HAMP objectives. Where condition data is not available, a coarse assessment should be made using knowledge within the authority. This can be refined over time. *BVPI is quoted to 2007/08 as at the time of issue this was the last year there was a requirement for full survey coverage i.e. including unclassified roads. Checks should be made for any more recent updates for current requirements.

9 7 5 Cost of Maintaining Each Group of Assets A specification for the collection of maintenance costs for the purposes of lifecycle planning should be established. This will identify the priorities, boundaries and ownership of cost data specifically for this process. Significant overlap is likely to exist with the cost data collected for maintenance benchmarking purposes, but may require additional manipulation for use in lifecycle planning. The costs of maintaining assets should be based on contract rates for reactive and planned works and take into account inflation and/or uplifts within contracts to ensure future projections are as realistic as possible. The life expectancy of various treatments or procedures undertaken should be based on internal and industry knowledge if possible to determine realistic service lives in addition to design lives. The determination of a basket of generic treatments will allow the sustainability of each to be considered and taken into account within the overall strategy derived from service options identified. With some asset groups such as carriageways, information will again be available through regional highway groups. Recording systems should be put in place to allow the refinement of maintenance cost data over time and hence the updating of projections on an annual basis. For example, the historical information that is built up within a pavement management system and the continued development of deterioration modelling software will then refine and increase the reliance that can be placed upon investment strategies.

10 8 6 Performance Gaps Once asset inventory, condition and cost data has been collected the performance of each asset or asset group should be calculated and compared to the desired or target level. Care should be taken when relying on historic performance data and appropriate levels of confidence should be established. Performance gaps will exist in most if not all of the asset groups, and there will be a number of gaps between the current performance of the asset and the level of performance that is desired. These should be documented within the plan and then considered within the context of demand and risk as below. Where there is an identified need to change and improve the way that assets are managed, these changes should also be described in the lifecycle plans and form part of the overall Improvement Plan, and a business case developed for the changes. The desired performance levels are defined in national, industry standards, Codes of Practice and procedures, as well as local standards of the authority. These can also be defined in terms of business objectives, demands and aspirations. The current performance is usually established through application of different types of performance assessment methods. These typically are represented by a formal regime of inspection and surveys. In reality, although performance is mainly measured according to BVPI results achieved, prioritisation to improve BVPI s is not necessarily commensurate with good asset management practice. A balanced view therefore needs to be taken when formulating an investment strategy to ensure good long term asset management planning is not sacrificed in the quest for improved PI results in the short term. As well as condition monitoring measures, other local performance indicators may be useful to establish the health of the asset groups. These include monitoring the frequency of high priority condition based defects i.e. those caused by a lack of maintenance; monitoring the volume of medium priority asset defects, which provides an indication of asset deterioration and the success of reactive maintenance; and monitoring the % of assets that are renewed annually, which can be compared to service life predictions. It is important to capture the lessons learnt from poor performance internally within asset maintenance practices and for setting revised HAMP and data collection targets. Performance should, ideally, also include some form of stakeholder satisfaction survey and, perhaps, a less systematic, ad-hoc reporting approach based on feedback from accidents and incidents of complaints (which link to Demands and Risk). There are two categories of performance gaps: Where the condition of an asset component is below that desired, and Where the level of service provided to the users of the highway is below that desired The Lifecycle Management Plans should set out details of the authority s current Service Standards and Performance Assessment Methods, as well as the processes for managing the assets.

11 9 7 Demands and Risks Lifecycle plans will need to identify and reflect the demands placed upon the asset and the risks involved in not maintaining the asset in the correct manner. Demands will be stated in the authorities HAMP and TAMP and reflect the priority values to which assets are expected to perform. These usually relate to safety, capacity, disruption, accessibility, amenity and environment/sustainability. The start up guide on Risk Management provides an appreciation of typical asset risks that require consideration. For example, a carriageway may have the demands of heavy vehicles placed upon it, but the risk of not maintaining it correctly may be mainly economic i.e. the carriageway may need reconstructing in a few years time whereas correctly maintained it may require more economic resurfacing at a much lower long term cost. The economic cost of not correctly maintaining a footway for example may be relatively small i.e. reconstructing rather than resurfacing, but the third party liability cost could be very high if users of the footway were to suffer personal injury.

12 10 8 Investment Strategy An investment strategy for each asset group in addition to a strategy for the overall highway asset will need to be derived from the information within the lifecycle plans. These will typically be based on maintaining or enhancing the highway asset to achieve a desired standard and translated into a forward programme of works. The typical stages of asset maintenance and the financial impact that these have over time is illustrated in Figure 4. Figure 4 Typical lifecycle maintenance interventions over time A good starting point for the investment strategy is to consider the total finance available for highway assets and then apportion this in accordance with service options and their consequences, identified in each of the lifecycle plans. Although this may not establish the investment required to meet desired service standards, it will provide a necessary base case. In the medium to long term future the use of refined deterioration modelling information can then be used to prove the investment requirements to achieve defined service standards and hence match the total finance to those standards or levels of service. It is important to regularly monitor the impact that an investment strategy has on asset performance and the support to lifecycle objectives. Example Lifecycle Plans Examples of Lifecycle Plans developed by authorities to date are attached as the following appendices: Appendix A Carriageway, Leicestershire County Council December 2007 Appendix B Structures, Surrey County Council March 2008 Appendix C Footway, Newcastle City Council October 2006 Appendix D Traffic Signal & Management Systems, Staffordshire County Council October 2008

13 Appendix A Carriageway, Leicestershire County Council December

14 12 Appendix A Carriageway Lifecycle Plan Leicestershire County Council Introduction 1. The background to lifecycle plans and the format of each are described in Section 5. This appendix provides the lifecycle plan for carriageways. 2. For management purposes, carriageways have been defined in categories 2 to 4b as shown in the table below. This is based on the national code of practice Well Maintained Highways. These categories reflect the type and use of different carriageways and so will form the basis for sound asset management. National funding and financial reporting is however based on the national classifications (A, B, C and unclassified). Cat. Hierarchy Type of Road Detailed Description 1 Motorways Motorway N/A 2 Strategic Routes Trunk and primary A Roads. Routes between primary destinations. 3a Main Distributor Non primary A roads and important or heavily trafficked B roads. Routes between strategic routes and linking urban centres to the strategic network. Annual average daily traffic: Urban >30,000 (1500 HGV) Rural >12,000 (1000 HGV) 3b Secondary Distributor B roads and heavily trafficked C roads. In rural areas link larger villages to strategic/ main distributor network. In urban areas usually have a 30 mph speed limit and high levels of pedestrian usage. 4a 4b Locally Important Roads All other metalled Roads Routes linking into the main/ secondary distributor network, normally C class, with greater local significance in rural areas; plus heavily trafficked unclassified roads. All other C roads and majority of unclassified network. Annual average daily traffic: Urban >20,000 (300 HGV) Rural > 7,000 (150 HGV) In rural areas provide inter-village links and connect to distributor network. In urban areas residential or industrial interconnecting roads. Annual average daily traffic: Urban >15,000 (150 HGV) Rural >5000 (100 HGV) In rural areas serve smaller villages and provide access to limited number of properties and land. In urban areas predominately residential.

15 13 Levels of Service 3. The desirable levels of service for this asset category are set out in the table below (see section 2 of main document). These levels of service would fully meet all aspirations whilst minimising whole-life costs. This lifecycle plan, in later sections, shows how different levels of available funding will influence the extent to which these desirable levels of service can be achieved. Attribute Desired Standard Performance measure Safety Availability Serviceability Condition Road surface of appropriate skid resistance and profile to minimise risk of loss of control accidents. All roads available for use at all times bar periods of essential roadworks Good standard surface without unevenness or potholes affecting vehicle ride quality At a level consistent with achieving minimum whole life cost, that is BV223 between 3 and 5%, 224a and 224b between 10 and 12%. Measures to be developed for second edition TAMP BV100 surveys for traffic sensitive streets CVI surveys MORI surveys BVPI surveys 4. It will be noted that the levels of service above take a restricted look at, particularly, safety and serviceability. Wider attributes, including alignment, safety of junctions and other aspects currently dealt with under the Council s improvements programme, will be considered for inclusion in future editions of the TAMP. 5. Failure to respond adequately to any of these four dimensions of level of service will produce risk to the authority. The table below, which details the main risks, underlines the importance of responding properly to each. Risk type Physical Business Financial Corporate image Environmental Network Description example Accidents caused by asset defects Legal proceedings for failure in duty of care Reduction in net book value of the asset because of poor maintenance practice; increased compensation payments following legal action; Poor condition roads reflect on the overall image of the County Council More premium aggregate, natural resources and energy per kilometre of treated network will be used in reconstruction and shorter life materials as opposed to longer life materials, resurfacing and overlay. More disruption to pedestrians and others because of emergency unplanned maintenance following poor maintenance practice

16 14 Asset base and characteristics 6. The extent of carriageways in four categories is shown in the table below: A Road B Road C Road UC Road km km Km Km Urban Rural Asset Condition and Assessment 7. To assess the extent to which the desirable levels of service are met requires measurements covering the four dimensions of safety, availability, serviceability and condition. Where measures currently exist for availability and serviceability they are inadequate and will be considered further in the second edition of the TAMP. 8. The condition of A, B and C roads is assessed annually by SCANNER surveys. A proportion of the unclassified network is assessed annually by (Coarse Visual Inspection) CVI survey. CVI surveys are also done on proportions of A, B and C roads to check trends. Deflectograph surveys are carried out on proportions of A and B roads. Griptester surveys are done on a proportion of A roads and on a site specific basis on other roads. NRMCS surveys are also carried out on the numbers of sites required by DfT. This requirement is likely to be dropped for A, B and C roads from A Roads B & C Roads Unclassified SCANNER 100% (in one direction) surveyed annually 100% (in one direction) surveyed annually Not surveyed Deflectograph GRIPTESTER 20% surveyed annually 33% of network surveyed annually 20% surveyed annually Not surveyed Site specific surveys only Not surveyed CVI 20% surveyed annually 50% surveyed annually( may reduce to 20% in future) 25% surveyed annually NRMCS 50 Sites 110 Sites 90 Sites

17 15 9. The Council has set its own standards for the frequency of its highway safety inspections. These take into account national guidelines, issued in the latest Code of Practice for Maintenance Management Well Maintained Highways (July 2005): Feature Reference Category Frequency of Inspection Carriageways 2 Strategic Routes 1 month 3(a) Main Distributors 1 month 3(b) Secondary Distributors 1 month 4(a) Locally Important Roads 3 months 4(b) All other metalled Roads 1 year 10. There are national Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) for all categories of carriageway. Best Value Performance Indicators BVPI 223 and BVPI 224 are a direct application of the Road Condition Index (RCI) from the current UKPMS default rule set. For unclassified roads the emphasis is on a range of condition indices relevant to rural and urban roads Principal roads ( A roads) BV223 (BV96) Non Principal Classified (B & C roads) BV224a (BV 97a) Unclassified (un-numbered minor roads) BV224b (BV 97b) The overall condition of the roads in Leicestershire has shown a gradual improvement, reflected in Table 4 below which details the BVPI results in recent years: Table 4 BVPI RESULTS (Highlighted cells signify reported figures) All figures are % s 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 BVPI 96 Deflectograph Survey. BVPI 96 Condition of Principal road network based on CVI Visual Survey. BVPI 223 Condition of Principal road network based on SCANNER Survey. BVPI 97a Condition of Non-Principal Classified road network by CVI BVPI 224a Condition of Non-Principal Classified road network by SCANNER BVPI 97b Condition of (Non-Principal) Unclassified road network based on CVI N/A N/A N/A % 4yr av (10% 1yr)

18 16 Asset Valuation 11. The initial gross replacement cost for the carriageway asset is 2.5 billion. The depreciation is approximately 40 million, which means that the net value is approximately 2.46 billion. Future Changes in Demand 12. Major new development is planned in the county over the next twenty years as part of the Regional Spatial Strategy. This expansion will bring substantial lengths of new carriageway in new housing and employment areas, and will also intensify the use of existing carriageways. The increase in the extent of the asset will, in the long term, produce a requirement for additional maintenance expenditure. The likely impact on maintenance expenditure, and on government funding for this, has not at this stage been quantified. Treatment options and costs 13. Road surfaces can be renewed, retextured, protected or repaired. Renewal involves replacing the top layer and will normally require replacement, or patching, of parts of the underlying layer. Retexturing increases the serviceable life of the surface course and restores a consistent level of grip. Protection treatments, such as surface dressing, restore the skid resistance and seal the surface of the road which prevents moisture getting into the surface and further oxidation of the binder. Repairs are treatments like patching, filling potholes, crack sealing and resetting ironwork. Treatment Expected Treatment Life (yrs) Average treatment cost Reactive Pothole repair 4 months per repair Reactive Odd kerb / iron work 2 years Kerb Gully Manhole Reactive Patching 3 years 30 40/m² Preventative Surface dressing 7-10 years 2.25/m² Planned Haunching 7-10 years 80.00/m Planned Kerbing 10 + years 20.00/m Planned Resurfacing 7-30 years 10.00/m² Planned Overlay years /m² Planned Renewal years /m² 14. A typical stretch of road might be maintained as follows, following the laying of a new surface: Inspect at required frequencies looking for potential potholes, problems around and concerning ironwork; reset ironwork and fill potholes;

19 17 Empty gullies and catch pits; sweep channels and hatched areas; weed spray to channels; Patch and seal areas to restore surface, especially in channels and around gullies; Consider surface dressing after 12 to 15 years, depending on road category and usage; more highly stressed areas, like junctions will be resurfaced if necessary, rather than dressed; Consider more significant roads for resurfacing earlier in their lives; less significant and less heavily trafficked roads may be surface dressed twice or more times before resurfacing. 15. The current levels of capital funding have only been available to the whole of the County network since The significant improvement in the condition of every category has been achieved using a mixture of resurfacing, surface dressing and revenue-funded patching. The programme has been determined on a worse-first basis, because of the initial poor condition and the available capital and revenue funding, rather than a justified asset management approach. Management strategy for minimising whole-life costs 16. Whole life costs include not only the direct costs of works, design and supervision and surveys, but also the indirect costs caused by sub-optimal maintenance regimes, including inconvenience to users, environmental impacts and third party claims. The main factors which will affect the whole life cost of an individual carriageway are: Type and quality of construction Degree and type of damage and degradation Type and volume of traffic Speed and quality of response to damage and degradation Timing of intervention and quality of medium and long term treatments 17. At present the links between these have not been fully quantified. This is an important area for research and progress nationally will be used to inform future editions of the TAMP. This will be a significant exercise, involving renewals, preventative work and reactive maintenance. 18. Historically, the Council s strategy for maintaining carriageways has been: to specify a high standard of initial construction to undertake timely reactive maintenance in order to keep carriageways in a safe condition and prevent short term deterioration, to have a programme of preventative maintenance to prevent deterioration of the surface and lower layers and to extend the life of the carriageway at minimum cost to resurface carriageways (using recycling techniques where possible) when reactive and preventative work is uneconomic to renew carriageways which are uneconomic to treat by other means. 19. This strategy is based on good practice but there has been no rigorous financial evaluation of the approach or testing of alternatives, for example the timing of the various interventions. The strategy is accepted as best practice for this version of the TAMP but further investigation of alternatives will be undertaken for the second version.

20 18 Options and targets within the management strategy 20. The analysis which follows analyses levels of capital spending against predicted outcomes for carriageway condition. Similar analysis in future editions of the TAMP will need to analyse in more detail the impact of revenue spending on condition, and also assess whether other aspects of conditions of service need similar consideration. It should be noted that the causal link between capital spend and resulting condition is complicated and not necessarily fully explained by the headline figures; this is another area for further investigation in future editions of the TAMP. LTP proposals 21. The second Local Transport Plan reviewed the correlation between the achievement of condition targets and proposed overall spending, within the indicative government allocations. This capital spending on resurfacing and reconstruction was to be supported by continued revenue spending on reactive maintenance at a level predicted to be approximately 5m a year in real terms through the five year period. The table below shows the LTP predicted spending and targets (targets for principal roads are for deflectograph surveys and non-principal classified and unclassified roads are for CVI surveys) 000s 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 Principal road carriageways 5 Year Total Target condition 10.8% 10.6% 10.4% 10.2% 10% Non-principal classified road c/ways Target condition 11.3% 11% 10.6% 10.3% 10% Unclassified road c/ways Target condition <10% <10% <10% <10% <10% 22. On the basis of further annual results becoming available using SCANNER data, the 2010/11 targets in the 2007/08 Departmental Service Plan are:- Principal roads 4% by SCANNER; Non-principal classified roads 9% by SCANNER; Unclassified - <10% by CVI surveys. 23. The SCANNER results are not directly comparable with those for deflectograph, and neither is directly comparable with those for CVI surveys. The targets for principal and nonprincipal roads (SCANNER) are assessed as being close to those which reflect minimum, perceived whole-life cost. That for unclassified roads (CVI) is still some way off that figure and there needs to be a consistent further improvement over a number of years, down to a figure closer to that for non-principal roads.

21 19 Alternative options 24. The reduced allocations for maintenance announced by the Department for Transport in late 2006, coupled with uncertainties over the likely outcome of the autumn 2007 government comprehensive spending review, mean that the targets must be reviewed. The revised spending for 07/08, 08/09 and 09/10, based on the reduced DfT allocations, was determined as follows: s 07/08 08/09 09/10 Principal road carriageways 1,415 1,410 1,610 Non-principal classified road c/ways 2,835 2,535 3,060 Unclassified road c/ways 1,065 1,020 1, However, these allocations would have resulted in an unacceptable worsening in the condition of category 3 and 4 footways. An adjustment was therefore made to allocate more spending for these, achieved by reducing the spending on principal road carriageways by 250,000 a year from 08/09. The revised table is shown below: s 07/08 08/09 09/10 Principal road carriageways 1,415 1,160 1,360 Non-principal classified road c/ways 2,835 2,535 3,060 Unclassified road c/ways 1,065 1,020 1, The reduced spend will result in some deterioration. This is not significant over the three year period in the context of experimental error in measurement, but if uncorrected in the longer term could lead to significant problems. The next edition TAMP will examine this further. Roads 2007/ / /10 Principal roads BV % 3.5% 3.6% Non-principal classified CVI 10.4% 10.3% 10.6% Unclassified roads BV 224b 9.2% 9.5% 9.8% 27. These options for carriageways are assessed in Section 6 against similar options for other asset categories, to produce the best overall balance within available funding against desired levels of service.

22 20 Lifecycle action plan 28. Most of the actions to deliver this lifecycle plan are, for this first edition of the TAMP, contained within the wider summary of development contained in Section 9. A separate action plan is therefore not included here, though it will be in future editions of the TAMP. Risks 29. The risks involved in implementing the lifecycle action plan have been assessed against the council s standard grid of likelihood versus impact and are detailed in the table below, with an outline of the mitigation to be planned. The red risks from each lifecycle plan are listed in section 7 of the main TAMP document. Impact of effects Severe A Significant B 1,5,6 Moderate C 2,3,4 Minor D Very Un- Likely Not Very Likely Quite Likely Likelihood of causes Very Likely Risk Level Mitigation (for red risks) Responsible 1. Insufficient staff resources for analytical work, particularly given structural change in the department 2B Ensure prioritised within group local action plan GM(Network Management) 2. Insufficient staff resources for customer attitude work 2C 3. Insufficient progress nationally and in the region to support changes in practice 2C 4. Materials/ labour/ plant/ staff costs 2C 5. Reduced capital funding 2B Review allocation between asset categories to minimise overall deterioration GM(Network Management) 6. Reduced revenue funding 2B Ditto ditto

23 Appendix B Structures, Surrey County Council March

24 SURREY HIGHWAYS STRUCTURES GROUP TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING

25 Project Title: Bridge Management Document Title: Transportation Asset Management Structures Asset Management Planning Client Reference: S/TAA/8 Date: 14 March 2008 Prepared By: Print Hugh Brooman Sign... Authorised By: Print Graham Cole Sign... Amendment List Iss. / Rev. Iss. / Rev Date Remove Insert Page Iss. / Rev. Page Iss. / Rev. Issue 00 July 2004 All pages 00 All pages SF10 07/08/02 Filename: S:\GENERAL\AMG\Structures\\lifecycle.doc Issue No.1 Page 23 of 101 Document No. 2227/17

26 Contents 1 Introduction 2 Strategic Goals and Objectives. 3 Asset Inventory 4 Current Performance 5 Future Demand 6 Performance Targets and Levels of Service 7 Performance Gaps 8 Lifecycle Plans 9 Value Management and Risk Management 10 Asset Valuation 11 Work Plan and Financial plan 12 Sustainable Development 13 Improvement Plan 14 References Issue No.1 Page 24 of 101 Document No. 2227/17

27 25 1 INTRODUCTION The Structures Group of the Surrey Highways Service undertakes the management of the highway structure asset. Highway structures are defined as any bridge or other structure that impinges in any way within the footprint of the highway or that materially affects the support of the highway or land immediately adjacent to it that meets certain dimensional criteria. Highway structures include bridges, culverts, subways, footbridges and retaining walls. An important Structures Group goal is to: document that the assets for which it is responsible are being preserved at, or above, a series of key performance indicators originally established for the assets We will do this by preparing and working to the Asset Management Planning process that is set out in this document. This is the second edition of this document the first was prepared in July It is recognised that the preparation of an Asset Management Plan is a continuous improvement process and it is anticipated that further versions of this Asset Management Planning document will be issued on an ongoing basis. It is widely recognised that a well managed transport infrastructure is vital to the economic stability, growth and social well being of a country. Bridges and other highway structures are fundamental to the transport infrastructure because they form essential links in the highway network. It is not therefore in the public interest to allow highway structures to deteriorate in a way that compromises the functionality of the highway network, be it through restrictions or closures caused by unsafe structures or the disruption of traffic through poor planning of maintenance work. [Ref 1] This Asset Management Planning document is based on the format recommended by the Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures (the Code) [Ref.1]. This document is part of a suite of resource management plans that support the corporate objectives of the County Council and the operational priorities of the Group: Surrey Highways Service Business Plan Annual Group Management Plan Quality Management System (QMS) documentation The relationship between these various documents is shown in Figure 1. The overall process involved in the Management of Highway Structures is shown in Figure 2. A comprehensive review of the work of the Structures Group was carried out in the first quarter of 2008 and some of these processes will change in the near future. Issue No.01 Document No. 2227/17

28 Fig.1 Key Documentation Fig. 2 The Management of Highway Structures Start DCP and other urgent safety issues Local Input (LTD Schemes) Assessment Results Condition Survey Improvements Collation into a list of tasks Technical Prioritisation Performance Monitoring (KPIs) Cost Options Programme Reporting Rolling Programme Update Records Unfunded Bid Budget Allocation Funded Annual Programme Construct Note: Damage to County Property (DCP) Issue No. 01 Document No. 2227/17

29 2 STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The overall policies and aims of the County Council are currently set out in the Manual of Policies and Standards (Maps) document. In addition, the Local Transport Plan (LTP) also sets out various criteria and objectives within the Planning and Maintaining the Highway Network chapter. Successful management of the bridge stock is fundamental to the implementation of the LTP. There are five main themes within the LTP and the Structures Group contributes to these as follows: Economy: the strategy takes account of the business needs of local communities in prioritising bridge management activities. Where weak bridges are on routes which provide access to business parks etc. weight restrictions would have a detrimental effect on the economy, so strengthening schemes receive a high priority rating. Safety: the strategy principally contributes to this objective by ensuring that minimum levels of safety are maintained. In maintenance, the repair of safety-related defects and damages takes priority. In bridge strengthening schemes, highway safety improvements are included where possible. Integration: a robust bridge stock is needed to deliver network flexibility requirements and accommodate bus routes which may be introduced to improve transport integration. Accessibility: in strengthening and refurbishing, accessibility for vulnerable users is improved by adding footpaths and increasing width whenever possible. The maintenance of subway pumps, anti-slip surfacing, handrails and graffiti clearance are important to provide a pleasant environment, so that pedestrians are encouraged to use subways and footbridges. The 2002 Audit Commission Best Value inspection of the Transportation Service commended the Structures Group on the inclusion of parapet enhancement measures in bridge strengthening schemes. Environment: environmental considerations, heritage value and conservation are taken into account in the selection of materials and methods of working for strengthening and reconstruction projects. The Highways Service priorities for 2007/08 include to Improve the Highway Network, Improve Road Safety and Security, Enhance the Environment and Quality of Life and to Provide Services to People and Communities in a Way that Meets their Needs. The work of the Structures Group contributes to all of these Service wide priorities. The Highways Act 1980 requires that roads are maintained to allow the passage of all Construction and Use vehicles i.e. those up to 40/44 tonnes. Therefore, the primary service standard is to maintain bridges to allow the passage of such vehicles, including smaller vehicles with 11.5 tonnes axles, unless a permanent weight restriction has been imposed at a particular bridge. In particular, Section 41 (1) of the Highways Act states: The Authority who are for the time being the highway authority for a highway maintainable at the public expense are under a duty,, to maintain the highway. The Act includes provisions for enforcing liability for maintenance (Section 56) that can be determined by a magistrates court. The Act provides a general power to improve highways (Section 62) including the provision of subways (Section 69), footbridges (Section 70) and the Issue No. 01 Document No. 2227/17

30 construction and reconstruction of bridges (Sections 91 and 92). More detailed sections of the Act grant the power to construct bridges over navigable water courses (Section 106). The Act grants the power to remove unauthorised structures (Section 143), to licence the construction of a bridge over the highway (Section 176) and to control the construction of scaffolding (Section 169) and cellars (Section 179). The Act also grants powers to control the construction of retaining walls near streets (Section 167). Furthermore, bridgeworks shall not be carried out unless approved by the county council (Section 195), a duty delegated to the Technical Approval Authority. The serviceability standards for the bridge stock will be maintained by seeking to achieve average and critical values of between 90 and 94 in accordance with the CSS Bridge Condition Indicator system [Ref. 2]. This reflects the usual practice of adopting a good standard as an optimum level of service determination [Ref. 3]. Service standards will be further developed as the family of national performance indicators described below is implemented. General consultation with the public regarding their interest in highway matters rarely includes reference to highway structures. Public consultation, which supported the development of the first edition of the Hertfordshire Asset Management Plan, showed that maintaining the safety of the bridge stock was a primary public objective and Surrey residents are unlikely to have different views. Local scheme specific consultations show that the public are rightly concerned about the way works are carried out and how they are involved in the process. We have local performance indicators that seek to address this matter. 3 ASSET INVENTORY This asset grouping comprises bridges (both vehicular and pedestrian), culverts, subways (and their associated pumps) and retaining walls. Bridges are of various types and spans but their construction is mainly concrete, steel or masonry / brick. The asset group includes right of way structures as well as those on main roads. In particular, highway structures are specifically defined as: Bridges, culverts, chambers or subways under or over the highway with a composite span of 0.9 metres or more. Retaining walls, where the height of retained fill measured between lower ground level and upper ground level is 1.37 metres (4 6 ) or more. Miscellaneous structures: Reinforced earth embankments 1.37 metres or more in height and where the angle of the side slopes is greater than the natural angle of repose of the embankment material High mast lighting columns 20 metres or more in height Structural aspects of sign and signal gantries as defined in HA Standard BD63 Structural aspects of traffic signal mast arm assemblies as described in HA Standard BD88 We carry out inspections of all SCC owned highway structures. Within the County there are also a significant number of structures carrying highways and other transport systems that are owned by other statutory bodies such as the Highways Agency, Network Rail and utility companies. We carry out superficial inspections of these structures, where appropriate, to safeguard highway users. Issue No. 01 Document No. 2227/17

31 Details of the asset are recorded on the Bridge Management System (BMS), supplied by Futuris, and known as Bridgestation. Much of this data is readily accessible via the County GIS system or by SAMS. The extent of the current inventory is indicated in Tables 1, 2 and 3. An indication of construction materials and year of construction are included in Tables 4 and 5. The Project Manager makes additions and changes to the asset inventory following significant maintenance work, completion of developer schemes, creation of new assets or discovery of an existing bridge or retaining wall. The inspection process is also used to check the validity of data held on individual structures. Details of the attributes recorded during the inspection process are included in section 4.1. The reliability of bridge data is high but there is still a need to improve the extent of the data regarding retaining walls. Monies had been allocated in 2007/08 to continue additional survey work for this asset sub-group but have now been withdrawn. Table 1 Asset by Type and District (all owners) Bridge Culvert Footbridge Subway Ret Wall Other Total Elmbridge Epsom and Ewell Guildford Mole Valley Reigate and Banstead Runnymede Spelthorne Surrey Heath Tandridge Waverley Woking Source: Bridge Management System (May 2007) Table 2 Asset by Type and Road Hierarchy (all owners) Bridge Culvert Footbridge Subway Ret Wall Other Total Primary Principal Non Principal Unclassified Row Private Other Source: Bridge Management System (May 2007) Issue No. 01 Document No. 2227/17

32 Table 3 Asset by Type and Owner Bridge Culvert Footbridge Subway Ret Wall Other Total SCC (Structures) Network Rail Other Source: Bridge Management System (May 2007) Table 4 SCC Asset by Construction Material (approximate) Prestressed Reinforced Concrete Metal Troughing Steel Composite Lattice Plate and Steel Girders Masonry Arches Timber Source: Adapted from Ref.4 Table 5 SCC Asset by Year of Construction (approximate) Pre Source: Adapted from Ref. 4 Issue No. 01 Document No. 2227/17

33 4 CURRENT PERFORMANCE 4.1 Condition Monitoring Measures The condition of all structures is monitored through general and principal inspections as shown in Table 6. A separate programme of special inspections is carried out for those structures that have been shown to be sub-standard following strength assessments (see below). Ad-hoc special inspections are also carried out following specific events such as vehicle impact or flooding. Inspection activities are detailed in Figure 3. Fig. 3 Bridge Inspection Process Map Inspection programme produced by PM and agreed by TAA BMS produces schedule of bridges to be inspected and type of inspection required Annually Inspection & risk assessment forms issued to PEs Annually PEs agree programme with inspectors and monitors programme Monthly Structure inspected Completed risk assessment forms returned to PM Completed inspection report returned to PE Schedule updated and PM informed of progress Monthly Approved Inspection data entered in BMS Approved inspection report (incl Risk Assessment) placed on Bridge File Source: QMS Process TS14-02 Issue No. 01 Document No. 2227/17